NationStates Jolt Archive

I know most people will say that Reagan was a great persident, but they just need a good smack of reality. Recently, someone said Reagan was the best president America had in the 20th century. Well folks, lets look. Reagan had one of the worst economies we've had since the Depression. When I told my friend Brian about this, he retorted, "No he didn't! That's just Liberal propaganda!" Okay, what do you think the term "Reaganomics"means? Also, FDR was much better than Reagan. Roosevelt not only got us out of the worst economic crisis in history, but he also helped Britan and Russia beat the Nazi's AND single handedly beat the Japenese in the Pacific. What did Reagan do? Say to Gorbachev, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down yer wall!" And waste a vast amount of money on that whole "Star Wars" crap. (For those of you who don't know, Star Wars was the name given to Reagan's little project of building an orbital laser cannon that could knock down Russian missiles. Needless to say, it didn't work.) But there is also a flip side to Reagan. He did help knock down the Soviet Union. I read in a post somewhere in the NS forum that, "He denied the world the chance of the worldwide revolution." Look at what you're saying, man! You're saying he denied the world fear & oppresion under a system doomed to fall!

Now to sit back and watch the flames leap sky high! :D
A.M.

No flames here.

I think that he was given the correct nick-name "the great communicator" the man could give a speach, but he was not much of a president. Iran-Contra ring any bells ?

Reagan's policies were nightmarish.

In spite of that, he managed to reinspire a generation of US citizens about the possibility of "America". He had a unique gift for capturing the public interest and making us feel good about ourselves and our place in the world. After the Viet Nam conflict and the debasement of Carter (who was just the opposite of Reagan, good solid policy but bad communication), many American's had lost faith in not only their government, but also their country. Reagan managed to reenergize them and reinvigorate them by encapsulating complex global issues into black and white terms. I'm not saying he was always right in his characterizations, but it did get people involved. I mean, even now, nearly 20 years after his Presidency and at least 8 years since he has had any visible appearance in public life, the man still inspires either fanatical devotion or rabid hatred.

Reagan had one of the worst economies we've had since the Depression.

Beg to differ ... Reagan inherited one of the worst economies since the Depression.
Four years of Carter's economic policies resulted in a stagflation mess that Reagan managed to successfully turnaround and resulted in a historic expansion of the economy.
Additionally Reagan began to reduce the size of big government, reduce taxes as well as bolster our military and national defense.
These points tell us the "truth about Reagan."

Actually, RG, you're buying into the spin a little too much. Reagan did cut taxes in 1981, but he raised them the next five years in a row. And while he talked a good game as far as cutting government is concerned, he actually expanded it--this article from the Washington Monthly (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0301.green.html) goes into greater detail about it. It dates back to 2001, but since we're talking about historical data, that doesn't make any difference.

Reagan did some good things, and his short term economic policies did help turn the economy around although in the long term they did some damage too. but let's not overstate the case.

his policies are the cornorstone of what is now nearly twenty years of unparalleled economic growth. reducing the highest marginal tax rates from 70% to 28% provideded the economic freedom for Americans to enjoy unprecedented prosperity.



On the downside he compromised with Democrats in the Congress too much and didn't reign in welfare spending enough. Didn't deregulate business fast enough, and didn't get rid of special interest deductions. Home mortgage interest rates, children, charitible contributions, and healthcare expenses are all there should be.

Iran Contra who in their right mind would even care. Moorites?

Yes, that evil Reagan and his anti-communist agenda. Capitalist Democratic Republics are the institutions of satan!

*roll*

You know, I don't see how you can give FDR so much credit for getting us out of the recession. It was WW2 that did that, and the enormous international demand it brought from American industries. He spend nearly a decade and millions of dollars on socialist programs and it really didn't work.

Iran Contra who in their right mind would even care. Moorites?I don't know--maybe those nuns who were raped and then dropped out of helicopters by those freedom loving contras might have a thing or two to say. Maybe those thousands of people who were murdered--the kid of stuff that's come out in Nicaragua's truth commission--they might care about Iran-Contra. Just off the top of my head. Or are they not people?

Its a shame you people can't look at Reagan from a Russian perspective.

Reagan was the one who had wrecked the Soviet Union. Say what you will, but it wasn't a bad thing to do.

Iran Contra who in their right mind would even care. Moorites?I don't know--maybe those nuns who were raped and then dropped out of helicopters by those freedom loving contras might have a thing or two to say. Maybe those thousands of people who were murdered--the kid of stuff that's come out in Nicaragua's truth commission--they might care about Iran-Contra. Just off the top of my head. Or are they not people?
Your right, the Sandistas were much better.

Actually, RG, you're buying into the spin a little too much. Reagan did cut taxes in 1981, but he raised them the next five years in a row. And while he talked a good game as far as cutting government is concerned, he actually expanded it--this article from the Washington Monthly (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0301.green.html) goes into greater detail about it. It dates back to 2001, but since we're talking about historical data, that doesn't make any difference.

Reagan did some good things, and his short term economic policies did help turn the economy around although in the long term they did some damage too. but let's not overstate the case.

Deregulation and the start of efforts toward privitization of social programs during Reagan's administration speak otherwise to your argument of expanding the role of the federal government in non-defense matters. I'm not saying that he exhibited perfection, but Reagan's legacy deserves more credit than what was presented in this original thread posting.

Iran Contra who in their right mind would even care. Moorites?I don't know--maybe those nuns who were raped and then dropped out of helicopters by those freedom loving contras might have a thing or two to say. Maybe those thousands of people who were murdered--the kid of stuff that's come out in Nicaragua's truth commission--they might care about Iran-Contra. Just off the top of my head. Or are they not people?
Your right, the Sandistas were much better.Let me say this simply so you understand.

We didn't support the Sandinistas with our money. We're not responsible for what they did.

We weren't supposed to be supporting the contras either, but Reagan and his administration broke the law and did so regardless. That means that we bear some responsibility for what they did--they used our resources to do it.

That's the difference. Got it?

I have never thought Reagan to be a 'great communicator'. I always thought he sounded insincere when he spoke on television.

...FDR was much better than Reagan...


FDR was probably the worst president in American history! The economic depression began in 1930 and didn't end until 1942. FDR came into office 3 years into the depression in 1933 and failed to get us out of it for 9 years! Can't say that about the Reagan years. Hell, even Hitler got Nazi Germany out of economic recession faster than Roosevelt! Before and since FDR no depression has lasted longer than 3 years. FDR's failed socialist economic policies prolonged the great depression.

Ronald Reagan presided over the longest peacetime economic expansion in American history.

FDR emasculated our military to the extent where even Japan had the balls to attack us and thought they could win! Roosevelt also allowed tyrant Joseph Stalin, to extend his communist rule over 750 million people at Yalta.

Reagan was a Great Communicator--he made many people believe his lies--he even compared the taliban to Our FoundingFathers

And waste a vast amount of money on that whole "Star Wars" crap. (For those of you who don't know, Star Wars was the name given to Reagan's little project of building an orbital laser cannon that could knock down Russian missiles. Needless to say, it didn't work.) But there is also a flip side to Reagan. He did help knock down the Soviet Union.


It was Star Wars that was a large part of his part in the fall of the Soviet Union. Soviet communism had stagnated the economy so badly, and the 'Star Wars' ploy - I believe it was just a ploy - caused the Soviets to take a look at their economy and say, "We can't match up with the Americans."

Capitalizt War Party, FDR revolutionized US government. Prior to that, the government had very little role in the affairs of people's lives. FDR changed that; he set up a number of programs and expanded the government's role, and basically saying that the government has an obligation to protect its people from economic depression.

I don't think you're aware of just how bad the Great Depression was ;) what he did was rather amazing. By the way, Hitler was a dictator and had propoganda and an omnipresent, all-consuming totalitarian government. FDR started off with a tiny government with very little roles in people's lives and turned it around while not becoming a dictator...

I like reagan. He brought the jellybean to new heights of popularity. :D

We weren't supposed to be supporting the contras either, but Reagan and his administration broke the law and did so regardless. That means that we bear some responsibility for what they did--they used our resources to do it.

Yes, but we never trained them to rape and pillage throughout their country. If Congress had backed it originally, it wouldn't have been illegal therefore without the legality part, there was seemingly nothing morally wrong about aiding rebels to combat an oppressive and corrupt communist regime. Heck, even Carter believed in the concept.

We simply told them to fight the Sandistas, for everything else, why not try blaming the rebels for a change? Let them take responsiblility for their own reprehensible behavior. Why don't the "left" ever mention that aiding the rebels is what helped lead to the current ProAmerica western-style Nicaraguan democracy in power today? Because if they had there way...the commies would still be running the country.

The revisionist history going on in this thread is worthy of the "no freaking clue" award. I don't have time to respond other then this short note, but I will come back to it. Some people sure don't know what the hell they're talking about (Redneck Geeks & Eli)

We weren't supposed to be supporting the contras either, but Reagan and his administration broke the law and did so regardless. That means that we bear some responsibility for what they did--they used our resources to do it.

Yes, but we never trained them to rape and pillage throughout their country. If Congress had backed it originally, it wouldn't have been illegal therefore without the legality part, there was seemingly nothing morally wrong about aiding rebels to combat an oppressive and corrupt communist regime. Heck, even Carter believed in the concept.

We simply told them to fight the Sandistas, for everything else, why not try blaming the rebels for a change? Let them take responsiblility for their own reprehensible behavior. Why don't the "left" ever mention that aiding the rebels is what helped lead to the current ProAmerica western-style Nicaraguan democracy in power today? Because if they had there way...the commies would still be running the country.Read my words again--I said that the US bears some responsibility--not all. Certainly the rebels deserve much of the blame. But the fact is that without US aid and support--illegal aid and support, I might emphasize--they wouldn't have been able to commit the atrocities they did on the scale they did.

The revisionist history going on in this thread is worthy of the "no freaking clue" award. I don't have time to respond other then this short note, but I will come back to it. Some people sure don't know what the hell they're talking about (Redneck Geeks & Eli)


Of course I would say the same about you in virtually every post you have that is about politics.

Revisionism? I think not.

:lol:

Oh and Incertonia I for one am glad that the US assisted in ending the Sandinistas reign, whether legally or not.

And I'm sure that you're glad of another of Reagans policies..
- The creation of Al-Queda, which Reagan propogated by financing and training the Mujahedeen of Afghanistan, including Bin Laden himself...

Add to that the fact that it was the Reagan administration that supplied Iraq with WMD during the '80's when they were at war with Iran, which resulted in the current Iraqi war and you've got yourself a reeeal all american hero...

And I'm sure that you're glad of another of Reagans policies..
- The creation of Al-Queda, which Reagan propogated by financing and training the Mujahedeen of Afghanistan, including Bin Laden himself...

Add to that the fact that it was the Reagan administration that supplied Iraq with WMD during the '80's when they were at war with Iran, which resulted in the current Iraqi war and you've got yourself a reeeal all american hero...

no wmd's were supplied. perhaps the funds were so they could buy the production equipment from the french and the germans. Iran was the greater threat then supporting the Iraqis in a war against them was logical policy.

defeating the Soviet Imperialist Empire in Afganistan no matter how it was accomplished was good policy also

Your description of FDR is only correct insofar as he was the numbskull that promoted the disgusting idea that government can better run ANYTHING than private individuals can. He is the despicable godfather of
government intrusion to the nth degree.
The truth is that government has failed at each and every endeavor to
"save" us idiots who are incapable of meeting our own needs. Just look at the "war on poverty" as a perfect example.
You probably also believe it is a good idea to have my taxes spent on tatoo removal for repentant ex-cons.
The truth is that their string of poor decisions got them where they are, and I bear no responsibility, social, monetary, or otherwise to bail them out.





And waste a vast amount of money on that whole "Star Wars" crap. (For those of you who don't know, Star Wars was the name given to Reagan's little project of building an orbital laser cannon that could knock down Russian missiles. Needless to say, it didn't work.) But there is also a flip side to Reagan. He did help knock down the Soviet Union.


It was Star Wars that was a large part of his part in the fall of the Soviet Union. Soviet communism had stagnated the economy so badly, and the 'Star Wars' ploy - I believe it was just a ploy - caused the Soviets to take a look at their economy and say, "We can't match up with the Americans."

Capitalizt War Party, FDR revolutionized US government. Prior to that, the government had very little role in the affairs of people's lives. FDR changed that; he set up a number of programs and expanded the government's role, and basically saying that the government has an obligation to protect its people from economic depression.

I don't think you're aware of just how bad the Great Depression was ;) what he did was rather amazing. By the way, Hitler was a dictator and had propoganda and an omnipresent, all-consuming totalitarian government. FDR started off with a tiny government with very little roles in people's lives and turned it around while not becoming a dictator...

Your description of FDR is only correct insofar as he was the numbskull that promoted the disgusting idea that government can better run ANYTHING than private individuals can. He is the despicable godfather of
government intrusion to the nth degree.
The truth is that government has failed at each and every endeavor to
"save" us idiots who are incapable of meeting our own needs. Just look at the "war on poverty" as a perfect example.
You probably also believe it is a good idea to have my taxes spent on tatoo removal for repentant ex-cons.
The truth is that their string of poor decisions got them where they are, and I bear no responsibility, social, monetary, or otherwise to bail them out.





And waste a vast amount of money on that whole "Star Wars" crap. (For those of you who don't know, Star Wars was the name given to Reagan's little project of building an orbital laser cannon that could knock down Russian missiles. Needless to say, it didn't work.) But there is also a flip side to Reagan. He did help knock down the Soviet Union.


It was Star Wars that was a large part of his part in the fall of the Soviet Union. Soviet communism had stagnated the economy so badly, and the 'Star Wars' ploy - I believe it was just a ploy - caused the Soviets to take a look at their economy and say, "We can't match up with the Americans."

Capitalizt War Party, FDR revolutionized US government. Prior to that, the government had very little role in the affairs of people's lives. FDR changed that; he set up a number of programs and expanded the government's role, and basically saying that the government has an obligation to protect its people from economic depression.

I don't think you're aware of just how bad the Great Depression was ;) what he did was rather amazing. By the way, Hitler was a dictator and had propoganda and an omnipresent, all-consuming totalitarian government. FDR started off with a tiny government with very little roles in people's lives and turned it around while not becoming a dictator...

You know, I don't see how you can give FDR so much credit for getting us out of the recession. It was WW2 that did that, and the enormous international demand it brought from American industries. He spend nearly a decade and millions of dollars on socialist programs and it really didn't work.

It wasn't about creating socialism. It was simply getting something for people to do. Building roads, etc. Hey doesn't that stimulate business? ;)

Stimulate business? Yes, but if the free market did not demand such projects (a highway in a certain area for example), the tax-funded upkeep of frivolous expenditures (liberal interpretation: investment) will become
cumbersome and objectionable to the taxpayer.
Surely you would not contend that social engineering such as came about as a result of FDR's fiendish quest for power usually stimulates business?
More likely, some candy assed politician has framed certain social programs in such a way as to appeal to the recipient (for obvious reasons) and villify any taxpayer who objects.
Come on, jump off the FDR bandwagon. It's more realistic elsewhere.








You know, I don't see how you can give FDR so much credit for getting us out of the recession. It was WW2 that did that, and the enormous international demand it brought from American industries. He spend nearly a decade and millions of dollars on socialist programs and it really didn't work.

It wasn't about creating socialism. It was simply getting something for people to do. Building roads, etc. Hey doesn't that stimulate business? ;)

Stimulate business? Yes, but if the free market did not demand such projects (a highway in a certain area for example), the tax-funded upkeep of frivolous expenditures (liberal interpretation: investment) will become
cumbersome and objectionable to the taxpayer.
Surely you would not contend that social engineering such as came about as a result of FDR's fiendish quest for power usually stimulates business?
More likely, some candy assed politician has framed certain social programs in such a way as to appeal to the recipient (for obvious reasons) and villify any taxpayer who objects.
Come on, jump off the FDR bandwagon. It's more realistic elsewhere.








You know, I don't see how you can give FDR so much credit for getting us out of the recession. It was WW2 that did that, and the enormous international demand it brought from American industries. He spend nearly a decade and millions of dollars on socialist programs and it really didn't work.

It wasn't about creating socialism. It was simply getting something for people to do. Building roads, etc. Hey doesn't that stimulate business? ;)

The revisionist history going on in this thread is worthy of the "no freaking clue" award. I don't have time to respond other then this short note, but I will come back to it. Some people sure don't know what the hell they're talking about (Redneck Geeks & Eli)


Of course I would say the same about you in virtually every post you have that is about politics.

Revisionism? I think not.

:lol:

Oh and Incertonia I for one am glad that the US assisted in ending the Sandinistas reign, whether legally or not.Long as you're satisfied with the blood on your hands, I guess all is okay with the world. Whatever.

Oh and Incertonia I for one am glad that the US assisted in ending the Sandinistas reign, whether legally or not.

The US subverting the democratic freedom and elections of another sovereign state is a good thing, then?

Oh and Incertonia I for one am glad that the US assisted in ending the Sandinistas reign, whether legally or not.

The US subverting the democratic freedom and elections of another sovereign state is a good thing, then?

If those elected are Communist.

Oh and Incertonia I for one am glad that the US assisted in ending the Sandinistas reign, whether legally or not.

The US subverting the democratic freedom and elections of another sovereign state is a good thing, then?

If those elected are Communist.

defeating the Soviet Imperialist Empire in Afganistan no matter how it was accomplished was good policy also

So it was "good policy" that lead directly to the destruction of the World Trading Centre? I would hate to see your idea of "bad policy".

Oh and Incertonia I for one am glad that the US assisted in ending the Sandinistas reign, whether legally or not.

The US subverting the democratic freedom and elections of another sovereign state is a good thing, then?

If those elected are Communist.How simple you are.

Must be nice, having the "moral clarity" to dismiss the wishes of an entire country simply because they decided to govern themselves in a fashion you disapprove of.

Oh and Incertonia I for one am glad that the US assisted in ending the Sandinistas reign, whether legally or not.

The US subverting the democratic freedom and elections of another sovereign state is a good thing, then?

If those elected are Communist.How simple you are.

Must be nice, having the "moral clarity" to dismiss the wishes of an entire country simply because they decided to govern themselves in a fashion you disapprove of.
Yes, it is quite nice to be against the same ideology that spawned some of the greatest murderers of all time. During the cold war, how many of these communist states actually managed not to butcher their own people, end majority rule, and set their country back 50 years.

The US subverting the democratic freedom and elections of another sovereign state is a good thing, then?

If those elected are Communist.

You are, of course, aware that one of the parties that made up the UNO coalition that beat the Sandinista government in the 1990 elections was the Nicaraguan Communist Party?

Yes, it is quite nice to be against the same ideology that spawned some of the greatest murderers of all time. During the cold war, how many of these communist states actually managed not to butcher their own people, end majority rule, and set their country back 50 years.Might as well be against, oh, monarchy, dictatorship, and lest we forget, democracy. It's not the system that spawns the murderous leadership, numbnuts--it's the leaders who do it.

Or have you forgotten about the systematic genocide of the Native Americans. The death and destruction visited by the democratically elected Adolf Hitler. Shall I continue? That's why you're simple-minded--you blame the system and not the perpetrator. Place blame where it belongs.

Yes, it is quite nice to be against the same ideology that spawned some of the greatest murderers of all time. During the cold war, how many of these communist states actually managed not to butcher their own people, end majority rule, and set their country back 50 years.Might as well be against, oh, monarchy, dictatorship, and lest we forget, democracy. It's not the system that spawns the murderous leadership, numbnuts--it's the leaders who do it.

Or have you forgotten about the systematic genocide of the Native Americans. The death and destruction visited by the democratically elected Adolf Hitler. Shall I continue? That's why you're simple-minded--you blame the system and not the perpetrator. Place blame where it belongs.
Actually, Hitler lost his election. But that dosen't matter. And I am against monarchy and dictatorships, although they tend not to be as bad as communists.

The communists of the cold war basically had a 100% failing rate. Allowing any country to fall to the Reds when we had the power to stop it would be the worst thing the US could do. I'd agree that its the leaders and not the system that ends up killing the people. Too bad Communism tends to spawn those leaders every single time.

The US subverting the democratic freedom and elections of another sovereign state is a good thing, then?

If those elected are Communist.

You are, of course, aware that one of the parties that made up the UNO coalition that beat the Sandinista government in the 1990 elections was the Nicaraguan Communist Party?
Yes. That dosen't change the fact that the Sandinistas were still Marxists. The Liberals in Australia are the conservative party.

The US subverting the democratic freedom and elections of another sovereign state is a good thing, then?

If those elected are Communist.

You are, of course, aware that one of the parties that made up the UNO coalition that beat the Sandinista government in the 1990 elections was the Nicaraguan Communist Party?
Yes. That dosen't change the fact that the Sandinistas were still Marxists.

Are you now claiming that the Nicaraguan Communist party weren't Marxists?

The US subverting the democratic freedom and elections of another sovereign state is a good thing, then?

If those elected are Communist.

You are, of course, aware that one of the parties that made up the UNO coalition that beat the Sandinista government in the 1990 elections was the Nicaraguan Communist Party?
Yes. That dosen't change the fact that the Sandinistas were still Marxists.

Are you now claiming that the Nicaraguan Communist party weren't Marxists?
I'm just saying that because one member of the UNO was communist dosen't mean that

A.) The Sandinistas weren't communist/Marxist
B.) The UNO was communist

But some of those elected to positions of power in the UNO administration were Communists, thus by your reasoning it would be justifiable for the US to continue subverting the democratic process there.

Anyhow, we appear to have established that you believe the US has the right to intervene in foreign democratic processes if foreign peoples decide to elect communists. From whence this right?

Actually, Hitler lost his election. But that dosen't matter. And I am against monarchy and dictatorships, although they tend not to be as bad as communists.


You obviously AREN'T aware of anything that goes on in Africa.

But some of those elected to positions of power in the UNO administration were Communists, thus by your reasoning it would be justifiable for the US to continue subverting the democratic process there.

Anyhow, we appear to have established that you believe the US has the right to intervene in foreign democratic processes if foreign peoples decide to elect communists. From whence this right?

As the most strongest and most powerful nation in the Free World, we have a moral duty to do such things.

In the Cold War, this took second fiddle to stopping the Communists, which sometimes meant we had to go with less than adequete things instead of democracy. Since the end of the Cold War, however, the track record is looking quite better, with Charles Taylor, Slobidan Milosovic, Saddam Hussein, and Aristide all sent packing. Unfortunately we bailed out of Somalia.

Actually, Hitler lost his election. But that dosen't matter. And I am against monarchy and dictatorships, although they tend not to be as bad as communists.


You obviously AREN'T aware of anything that goes on in Africa.

I know Robert Mugabe's a bad guy. And that Mobuto Sese Seke (I believe that was his name) in the Congo was bad as well. None have managed, I think, to either rack up as many (Stalin, Mao) or as high a percentage (Pol Pot) as the communists.

But you still haven't answered the question, Kwangistar. By what right should the US overthrow duly elected governments if those governments happen to be Communist?

But you still haven't answered the question, Kwangistar. By what right should the US overthrow duly elected governments if those governments happen to be Communist?

I think its our duty to humanity as one of, if not the only, nation capable of overthrowing such governments to do it. Communists in the cold war always turned their nations into murderous dictatorships. If a nation in which communists were elected didn't begin a slide to dictatorship, then we shouldn't overthrow them. That just hasn't happened in the past. I'm not exactly sure of the situation in Moldova right now but this may be one of these cases, although given the state of most of the Former Soviet Republic's governments, it dosen't seem so.

The truth about Reagan is that he was a courageous, intelligent, strong, compassionate, handsome, clever, patriotic, beloved, caring, pragmatic, handsome, man who led our country to ecstatic, glorious days that shall live on forever as a shining example of what one great man and one great people can achieve. These are facts, therefore saying otherwise is lying.

Reagan: sponsoring terrorism in Nicaragua, Grenada, Honduras as a vazal nation in witch the death squads can learn how to kill Romero and other priests..

Glad that this ass is dead, I hoped that he suffered and will be judged by all his Latin American victims, killed by his terrorists.

But you still haven't answered the question, Kwangistar. By what right should the US overthrow duly elected governments if those governments happen to be Communist?

I think its our duty to humanity as one of, if not the only, nation capable of overthrowing such governments to do it. Communists in the cold war always turned their nations into murderous dictatorships. If a nation in which communists were elected didn't begin a slide to dictatorship, then we shouldn't overthrow them. That just hasn't happened in the past. I'm not exactly sure of the situation in Moldova right now but this may be one of these cases, although given the state of most of the Former Soviet Republic's governments, it dosen't seem so.Here's where I think you're going off the track--the US may have a duty to humanity to interfere in the affairs of nations with leaders that murder their own citizens, but the political ideology of the citizens of those nations should never be a factor. If you want to be the world's policeman, then make that argument, but as long as you link it to combating a particular ideology, you're on very shaky moral and ethical ground. I think you have to base it on the actions taken by the leaders of a country.

The truth about Reagan is that he was a courageous, intelligent, strong, compassionate, handsome, clever, patriotic, beloved, caring, pragmatic, handsome, man who led our country to ecstatic, glorious days that shall live on forever as a shining example of what one great man and one great people can achieve. These are facts, therefore saying otherwise is lying.

No, the truth is that you are lying, or do you like it when he gave the order to kill poor farmers in Latin America, or are you just plain stupid (I know, you are just another fascist freak) and neglect the real facts about the dirty war.

Thanks to Reagan, you guys have had Saddam and Bin Laden, they were your selfcreated friends..."They are bastards, but they are OUR bastards" well, we all saw the consequenses.. :twisted:

This is hopelessly anecdotal, but so was Reagan -- At the time he announced he had Alzheimer's I was teaching an econ class at a suburban community college. Although I hated his policies, I reflexively said, "That sucks, horrible way to die." Most of the class supported him politically, but they were laughing about his disease. Now that he's not trapped in a vegetative state anymore, but safe in the arms of Jesus, they're probably all misty-eyed with grief that The Great Man Is No Longer With Us. Or that he didn't die closer to the election, or something. :roll:

The truth about Reagan is that he was a courageous, intelligent, strong, compassionate, handsome, clever, patriotic, beloved, caring, pragmatic, handsome, man who led our country to ecstatic, glorious days that shall live on forever as a shining example of what one great man and one great people can achieve. These are facts, therefore saying otherwise is lying.

No, the truth is that you are lying, or do you like it when he gave the order to kill poor farmers in Latin America, or are you just plain stupid (I know, you are just another fascist freak) and neglect the real facts about the dirty war.

Thanks to Reagan, you guys have had Saddam and Bin Laden, they were your selfcreated friends..."They are bastards, but they are OUR bastards" well, we all saw the consequenses.. :twisted:It's called blowback, and it sure can be a bitch.

But you still haven't answered the question, Kwangistar. By what right should the US overthrow duly elected governments if those governments happen to be Communist?

I think its our duty to humanity as one of, if not the only, nation capable of overthrowing such governments to do it. Communists in the cold war always turned their nations into murderous dictatorships. If a nation in which communists were elected didn't begin a slide to dictatorship, then we shouldn't overthrow them. That just hasn't happened in the past. I'm not exactly sure of the situation in Moldova right now but this may be one of these cases, although given the state of most of the Former Soviet Republic's governments, it dosen't seem so.Here's where I think you're going off the track--the US may have a duty to humanity to interfere in the affairs of nations with leaders that murder their own citizens, but the political ideology of the citizens of those nations should never be a factor. If you want to be the world's policeman, then make that argument, but as long as you link it to combating a particular ideology, you're on very shaky moral and ethical ground. I think you have to base it on the actions taken by the leaders of a country.
I could agree with that statement. If Communists in any country could show themselves to govern normally, rather than take dictoral control, I wouldn't support removing them.

I could agree with that statement. If Communists in any country could show themselves to govern normally, rather than take dictoral control, I wouldn't support removing them.Give it a chance--as a system of government, communism is not quite a hundred years old. And we did some pretty atrocious things in the two hundred years of our democracy.

I know most people will say that Reagan was a great persident, but they just need a good smack of reality. Recently, someone said Reagan was the best president America had in the 20th century. Well folks, lets look. Reagan had one of the worst economies we've had since the Depression. When I told my friend Brian about this, he retorted, "No he didn't! That's just Liberal propaganda!" Okay, what do you think the term "Reaganomics"means? Also, FDR was much better than Reagan. Roosevelt not only got us out of the worst economic crisis in history, but he also helped Britan and Russia beat the Nazi's AND single handedly beat the Japenese in the Pacific. What did Reagan do? Say to Gorbachev, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down yer wall!" And waste a vast amount of money on that whole "Star Wars" crap. (For those of you who don't know, Star Wars was the name given to Reagan's little project of building an orbital laser cannon that could knock down Russian missiles. Needless to say, it didn't work.) But there is also a flip side to Reagan. He did help knock down the Soviet Union. I read in a post somewhere in the NS forum that, "He denied the world the chance of the worldwide revolution." Look at what you're saying, man! You're saying he denied the world fear & oppresion under a system doomed to fall!

Now to sit back and watch the flames leap sky high! :D
A.M.

The problems with the economy had more to do with Reagan's corrupt cabinet than with his policies. How was he supposed to function with Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations, and Skull and Bones goonies breathing down his neck? John Hinckley was a Bush family friend. Do you think that was a coincidence? The expansion of the federal government and increase of the national debt was not Reagan's idea. Before he was shot he had talked about abolishing the IRS.

With that said, I can't really blame anyone but the administration itself. It allowed, through the FDA, the sacrifice of children to Reye's Syndrome to appease Bayer and other aspirin companies. Was Reagan really somehow the mastermind of Iran-Contra, the October Surprise, and the war in Grenada? Bush with his intelligence ties is more suspect than Reagan for the administration's corrupt foreign policy.

What did Reagan really do to cause the fall of the Soviet Union? That's like blowing on a 300-year-old tree as it falls and claiming responsibility for its fall as though you have the most powerful lungs in the universe.

FDR enticed the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor while cutting the base's defenses and authorizing their planes to be in a state where they wouldn't be ready for an attack. Right... greatest president of the 20th Century. JFK and Reagan could have been great if they hadn't been on the CIA's hit list.

Oh and Incertonia I for one am glad that the US assisted in ending the Sandinistas reign, whether legally or not.

The US subverting the democratic freedom and elections of another sovereign state is a good thing, then?

the sandisnistas weren't elected

Bayer is a German company that sells products in the US.

How about the whole deregulation thing that Regan started. He's responsible for how crappy the water, telephone and television services have gotten. Public services have never benefitted from deregulation...

Not to mention plane crashes. (You're saying "He caused plane crashes? How?") He fired all of the striking air traffic controllers, and had them replaced by undertrained scab workers, who weren't entirely able to handle the stress of the most difficult job in the world. Accidents from that era related to "human error" went up drasticly...

He didn't bring down the Soviet Union, he outspent them with bad cheques that you are still paying for.

Mind you, they even found nice things to say about Nixon when he died.

Interesting that Presidents are allowed only two terms of office, yet their advisers (ie the ones with the real power) can be in control for effectively decades.

The Latin American press has had some choice words to say about Reagan and the majority ain't complimentary. He was a mediocre actor and a convenient figurehead for an administration that meddled, obfuscateda and lied while endorsing bloodshed, tyranny and misery. He lived to a ripe old age.

I won't mourn for him and I'm astonished that anyone would, even his supporters (what, did you want him to alive and vegetative for another thirty years?).

How about the whole deregulation thing that Regan started. He's responsible for how crappy the water, telephone and television services have gotten. Public services have never benefitted from deregulation...

Not to mention plane crashes. (You're saying "He caused plane crashes? How?") He fired all of the striking air traffic controllers, and had them replaced by undertrained scab workers, who weren't entirely able to handle the stress of the most difficult job in the world. Accidents from that era related to "human error" went up drasticly...

He didn't bring down the Soviet Union, he outspent them with bad cheques that you are still paying for.

Mind you, they even found nice things to say about Nixon when he died.
Deregulation is what has fueled the economic prosperity that has bulled forward for nigh on twenty years now along with marginal tax rate cuts and decreases in the welfare state, thanks Newt and Bill. Long distance telephone service is lower now, as is local, than when he came in office which was 23+ years ago. The quality of service has never been better it is called competition. And that cost will continue to be driven down except of course in areas where there isn't competition, say like in a country that owns its own phone service. Luckily that isn't the US.

The air traffic controllers struck illegally in violation of their own contract. They deserved firing.

There were three television networks and a handful of cable channels when he came into office there are literally hundreds now, poorer service? You couldn't get a picture that was visible then if you didn't live in a metro area. You can get a perfect picture in the smallest hamlet in the country now with hundreds of channels of programming, yeah that is worse too?

The federal government doesn't deliver water to communities in the US. The President has nothing to do with it. The local communities pay for that.

Nice job of research got any facts or you just going to keep making stuff up.

How about the whole deregulation thing that Regan started. He's responsible for how crappy the water, telephone and television services have gotten. Public services have never benefitted from deregulation...

Not to mention plane crashes. (You're saying "He caused plane crashes? How?") He fired all of the striking air traffic controllers, and had them replaced by undertrained scab workers, who weren't entirely able to handle the stress of the most difficult job in the world. Accidents from that era related to "human error" went up drasticly...

He didn't bring down the Soviet Union, he outspent them with bad cheques that you are still paying for.

Mind you, they even found nice things to say about Nixon when he died.
Deregulation is what has fueled the economic prosperity that has bulled forward for nigh on twenty years now along with marginal tax rate cuts and decreases in the welfare state, thanks Newt and Bill. Long distance telephone service is lower now, as is local, than when he came in office which was 23+ years ago. The quality of service has never been better it is called competition. And that cost will continue to be driven down except of course in areas where there isn't competition, say like in a country that owns its own phone service. Luckily that isn't the US.

The air traffic controllers struck illegally in violation of their own contract. They deserved firing.

There were three television networks and a handful of cable channels when he came into office there are literally hundreds now, poorer service? You couldn't get a picture that was visible then if you didn't live in a metro area. You can get a perfect picture in the smallest hamlet in the country now with hundreds of channels of programming, yeah that is worse too?

The federal government doesn't deliver water to communities in the US. The President has nothing to do with it. The local communities pay for that.

Nice job of research got any facts or you just going to keep making stuff up.air america said deregulation of cable TV made rates quadruple--deregulation of things usually raises prices thru the roof for consumers cause then monopolies get to rape the masses

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Reagan was one of the smartest presidents ever unlike john kerry who im sure the left wing moron that first wrote this disagrees with. Yeah by the way really tough of you talking about a dead president that way your just mad that Reagan is geting attention and people are finally seeing how great of a president he was. You dont see me calling FDR a damn dummy and even if Kerry Clinton or any other political figure died not one republican would say a bad thing about him because thats what seperates republican from liberals. BUSH 2004THINKING people dont buy into the Reagan hype--now be a good little sheep and run along